(Original post by copril)
This question also confused me... Wiles argument says that miracles don't happen (there are not individual acts, the only miracle is creation)-- not that God doesn't exist... Perhaps, it's just before Wiles comes to his conclusion? I haven't really got a clue, I really doubt this would be how a question was worded though-- it's a bit of a trick question...

(Original post by Username_valid)
For meta ethics, does anyone actually say ethical language is meaningless? I know Ayer says its meaningful to some extent and all the others say its meaningful one way or another?

Also what's the difference between innate and God-given? If its God-given does that mean its innate?

All the cognitive theories would imply that ethical language is meaningful as, well, they see it as fact! If its objective then it describes the way the world is, which they would see is meaningful as it arguably offers some form or objective moral rules. For Ayer's emotivism ethical language is meaningless as it is neither analytic nor synthetic (the only types of meaningful language)
Sorry that's all my brain can get out at the moment, its late and I've just go into bed :P just try and interpret the theories really, they don't always say explicitly whether or not religious language is meaningful

(Original post by strawberryswing)
All the cognitive theories would imply that ethical language is meaningful as, well, they see it as fact! If its objective then it describes the way the world is, which they would see is meaningful as it arguably offers some form or objective moral rules. For Ayer's emotivism ethical language is meaningless as it is neither analytic nor synthetic (the only types of meaningful language)
Sorry that's all my brain can get out at the moment, its late and I've just go into bed :P just try and interpret the theories really, they don't always say explicitly whether or not religious language is meaningful

Hi! Sorry, it's a quick question really! I haven't done much revision on Meta Ethics and I'm worried that it'll come up tomorrow! I'm quickly trying to run through it now but could anyone give me a quick run-down of the key ideas? It'd be awesome if you could!

(Original post by JordanC55)
Hi! Sorry, it's a quick question really! I haven't done much revision on Meta Ethics and I'm worried that it'll come up tomorrow! I'm quickly trying to run through it now but could anyone give me a quick run-down of the key ideas? It'd be awesome if you could!

Hey! Okay-
2 sections, cognitive and non cognitive
Cognitive- Objective views on what good and bad means, and good and bad have meaning.
-Intuitionism, G.E Moore, he said that good is indescribable, it is a simple word like the colour yellow, people intuitively know what good is, people recognise it.
-intuitionism, W.D Ross- prima facie duties (don't understand them )
-intuitionism, H.R Pritchard- people recognise moral obligation

Non cognitive
-emotivism, work of A.J Ayer, based on his views from the logical positivists, basically good and bad are meaningless because they are merely emotions- boo/hurrah theory. For him the only meaningful statements are those which are analytic and synthetic then there is C.L Stevenson who agrees with Ayer but says that words such as steal try and influence the listener because of the emotion.
R.M Hare has the theory of prescriptivism and says that when people talk of stealing as wrong they mean that 'I shouldn't steal and neither will you' through the emotion etc the person prescribes an action to another
Hope that helps sorry if some of it is unclear!

There's emotivism Stevenson, who says that ethical language is meaningless, then prescriptivism however that arguably fails to do what it attempts to do (prove it to be meaningless). The naturalists and intuitionist that attempt to prove ethical language to be meaningful fail to do so in a convincing way, as weaknesses are the open question argument ,naturalistic fallacy and the verification principle itself fails its own test, intuitionism is too subjective

(Original post by Hannahm1995)
Hey! Okay-
2 sections, cognitive and non cognitive
Cognitive- Objective views on what good and bad means, and good and bad have meaning.
-Intuitionism, G.E Moore, he said that good is indescribable, it is a simple word like the colour yellow, people intuitively know what good is, people recognise it.
-intuitionism, W.D Ross- prima facie duties (don't understand them )
-intuitionism, H.R Pritchard- people recognise moral obligation

Non cognitive
-emotivism, work of A.J Ayer, based on his views from the logical positivists, basically good and bad are meaningless because they are merely emotions- boo/hurrah theory. For him the only meaningful statements are those which are analytic and synthetic then there is C.L Stevenson who agrees with Ayer but says that words such as steal try and influence the listener because of the emotion.
R.M Hare has the theory of prescriptivism and says that when people talk of stealing as wrong they mean that 'I shouldn't steal and neither will you' through the emotion etc the person prescribes an action to another
Hope that helps sorry if some of it is unclear!

one thing though, what does the word Objective mean in this context, it keeps coming up and I can't get my head around it.

I think it's that the concepts of 'good' and 'bad' have absolute meanings that are fixed?

Also, 'prima facie' duties, from what i understand, are certain and intuitive obligations (in comparison to other duties, which are less certain), but can be overriden by another obligation that may be more pressing. Examples of prima facie obligations are things like fulfilling promises and promoting the good of others. Ross basically says that these moral obligations are just as much a part of the nature of the universe as a mathematical statement.